Who really created the Son of God?

[JustMe]

What “overwhelming scriptural evidence”? What is just one verse that “infers it’s an impossibility”?

I doubt you would even consider my listing of this 'impossible' support in scripture, which I have already documented before, much less my explanation of each point, based on my past interactions with your posts. You would likely overwhelm my responses with your comments, making my words unheard. Engaging in that kind of exchange is not a good use of my time.

 

[dak]

3. Reasoning "what would that mean in the Jewish culture" is quite irrelevant. It is like saying what would J 1:1 about the Logos being in the beginning and God mean in the Jewish culture or what would the Logos becoming flesh mean in the Jewish culture etc. Jewish culture is not the standard through which we judge what was in the text. In fact, if any, then the Hellenistic culture should be the view to read the text through (study what the Logos meant in the Hellenistic Judaism, here: Philo - Wikipedia)

Perhaps you might be interested in the following info, (neither is too lengthy, at least imo). The second link also has a section on Philo Judaeus whom you have referenced.

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

MOSES AND MEMRA

Thus Memra is sometimes employed for the Word of the Most High in the Aramaic Targums, (however Memra is not only Aramaic, but also Hebrew, it simply isn't pointed accurately by the Masorete pointed interpretation of that word in the related passages, (which they point as Mamre instead of Memra, one of Abraham's three friends who he is said to be in covenant with, (Gen 14:13)).

Knowing the scripture, understanding these things, and how Yah Elohim is often spoken of in anthropomorphic terminology, and what Paul teaches about that through quoting Isaiah and Psalms, the original Hebrew text would have read something much like the following:

The Memra existed in the beginning, and the Memra was within ELוH, (EL WHO IS), and Yah is the Memra

However, Memra was never intended by the Yhudim to be thought of as a second person of a triune deity. Memra was employed as a way to avoid situations where the Most High appeared to be referred to in anthropomorphic language, (just as Yah also is found in such places because He actually is the Memra, Logos, and Word of the Father sent into the world).

The Memra is neither a human being nor a man.
Yah Elohim is neither a human being nor a man.
The Logos is neither a human being nor a man.

 

[JustMe]

Perhaps you might be interested in the following info, (neither is too lengthy, at least imo). The second link also has a section on Philo Judaeus whom you have referenced.

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

MOSES AND MEMRA

Thus Memra is sometimes employed for the Word of the Most High in the Aramaic Targums, (however Memra is not only Aramaic, but also Hebrew, it simply isn't pointed accurately by the Masorete pointed interpretation of that word in the related passages, (which they point as Mamre instead of Memra, one of Abraham's three friends who he is said to be in covenant with, (Gen 14:13)).

Knowing the scripture, understanding these things, and how Yah Elohim is often spoken of in anthropomorphic terminology, and what Paul teaches about that through quoting Isaiah and Psalms, the original Hebrew text would have read something much like the following:

The Memra existed in the beginning, and the Memra was within ELוH, (EL WHO IS), and Yah is the Memra

However, Memra was never intended by the Yhudim to be thought of as a second person of a triune deity. Memra was employed as a way to avoid situations where the Most High appeared to be referred to in anthropomorphic language, (just as Yah also is found in such places because He actually is the Memra, Logos, and Word of the Father sent into the world).

The Memra is neither a human being nor a man.
Yah Elohim is neither a human being nor a man.
The Logos is neither a human being nor a man.

Yes, the word as Memra with its side kick, wisdom, that created all. This was John's Hebraic view and combined with his then current Greek view of logos became the divine dynamic power of God to create. That later in turn was established and embedded into Christ and thus he could then reveal God through it, to us. John 1:1, 14, and 18

 

[dak]

Yes, the word as Memra with its side kick, wisdom, that created all. This was John's Hebraic view and combined with his then current Greek view of logos became the divine dynamic power of God to create. That later in turn was established and embedded into Christ and thus he could then reveal God through it, to us. John 1:1, 14, and 18

And the "embedding" vehicle was the same, the Spirit [of] Elohim. In the very beginning Ruach Elohim is also painted in an anthropomorphic light, for we are told that Ruach Elohim was brooding over the waters, (like a hen of the doves when she gathers her brood under her wings). Moreover the Spirit is above the waters: this cannot be speaking of the Father, of whom we know by the scripture that not even the heavens and the heaven of the heavens can contain him. Testimony is spirit, whether for the good or for the evil, the whole Torah is full of the Testimony of the Father spoken to Mosheh, Ahron, and the people, which is why the Ark of the Covenant is also called the Ark of the Testimony. The Testimony of the Meshiah, given to him from above, (John 3:27), from the Father, (Deut 18:18-19, John 12:49-50), is Spirit and Life, (John 6:63).

And where did the "embedding" happen? Another place where we surely find anthropomorphic, (or rather even zoomorphic), language concerning Ruach Elohim: this is the Son, the Spirit of the Father, Ruach Elohim, Yah Elohim, the Memra, the Logos, the Word, and the Wisdom of Elohim.

Luke 3:22a -- And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him.......

 

[JustMe]

And the "embedding" vehicle was the same, the Spirit [of] Elohim. In the very beginning Ruach Elohim is also painted in an anthropomorphic light, for we are told that Ruach Elohim was brooding over the waters, (like a hen of the doves when she gathers her brood under her wings). Moreover the Spirit is above the waters: this cannot be speaking of the Father, of whom we know by the scripture that not even the heavens and the heaven of the heavens can contain him. Testimony is spirit, whether for the good or for the evil, the whole Torah is full of the Testimony of the Father spoken to Mosheh, Ahron, and the people, which is why the Ark of the Covenant is also called the Ark of the Testimony. The Testimony of the Meshiah, given to him from above, (John 3:27), from the Father, (Deut 18:18-19, John 12:49-50), is Spirit and Life, (John 6:63).

And where did the "embedding" happen? Another place where we surely find anthropomorphic, (or rather even zoomorphic), language concerning Ruach Elohim: this is the Son, the Spirit of the Father, Ruach Elohim, Yah Elohim, the Memra, the Logos, the Word, and the Wisdom of Elohim.

Luke 3:22a -- And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him.......

Excellent credible support of the subject at hand....Luke 3:22a hits a home run

 

[GRACE ambassador]

who Really 'created' The SON Of God?

Bible Answer: NO one!

Complete Case For The Triune GodHead!!

He Created All things, and Thus could Not have 'created' Himself!!!

And, precious friend, Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

 

[dak]

Excellent credible support of the subject at hand....Luke 3:22a hits a home run

Thanks, I just remembered something else critical which I failed to mention. The very next verse, Luke 3:23, tells us that the Meshiah, (Anointed One), was commencing about years thirty or the age of thirty. This is the age according to the Torah when a Kohen is supposed to be ready for induction into the priesthood, (Numbers Ch. 4). This should inform us that the Meshiah must have been many years, if not all his life up to this point, in deep study and prayer concerning all things pertaining to the Father and His Word, and especially when it comes to the priesthood: this also indicates great faith, for as we know, he was of tribe Yhudah, and would therefore only qualify for the higher order, the order according to the Melki-Tzedek priesthood.

My point here is the "embedding" you spoke about: all of his life before the immersion must have been spent "embedding" the written scripture into his heart, mind, and soul, in preparation for induction into the priesthood at his immersion, which was the final "embedding" of the Spirit of the Father, (the one and only-kind beloved Son with whom the Father sets seal).

 

[JustMe]

Thanks, I just remembered something else critical which I failed to mention. The very next verse, Luke 3:23, tells us that the Meshiah, (Anointed One), was commencing about years thirty or the age of thirty. This is the age according to the Torah when a Kohen is supposed to be ready for induction into the priesthood, (Numbers Ch. 4). This should inform us that the Meshiah must have been many years, if not all his life up to this point, in deep study and prayer concerning all things pertaining to the Father and His Word, and especially when it comes to the priesthood: this also indicates great faith, for as we know, he was of tribe Yhudah, and would therefore only qualify for the higher order, the order according to the Melki-Tzedek priesthood.

My point here is the "embedding" you spoke about: all of his life before the immersion must have been spent "embedding" the written scripture into his heart, mind, and soul, in preparation for induction into the priesthood at his immersion, which was the final "embedding" of the Spirit of the Father, (the one and only-kind beloved Son with whom the Father sets seal).

You present a clearer picture of John 1:1, 14 and 18 by describing Yeshua's holy work from his teenage youth days until manhood, being embedded and immersed into the word, maturing into the word until his set time to become our designated priest of God and his Messiah by the crowing act of the empowerment of his Father's Spirit. The word becoming and became human takes on a more clearer view. It was Yeshua's amalgamation of the word surrounded by the Spirit that transformed him into the Messiah as the true Son of God - very unique, and perfect.

"You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22), marking the beginning of His public ministry with the word and the Spirit of God aboard.

Yeshua became the Messiah through the convergence of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, fulfilling prophetic expectations rooted in Jewish scripture.

The concept of the Word (Dabar) as the active, creative force of God is central to understanding Yeshua’s identity. In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew phrase "In the beginning, God created" uses Alef-Tav, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, symbolizing the eternal word Of God through which all things were made.

 

[dak]

You present a clearer picture of John 1:1, 14 and 18 by describing Yeshua's holy work from his teenage youth days until manhood, being embedded and immersed into the word, maturing into the word until his set time to become our designated priest of God and his Messiah by the crowing act of the empowerment of his Father's Spirit. The word becoming and became human takes on a more clearer view. It was Yeshua's amalgamation of the word surrounded by the Spirit that transformed him into the Messiah as the true Son of God - very unique, and perfect.

"You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22), marking the beginning of His public ministry with the word and the Spirit of God aboard.

Yeshua became the Messiah through the convergence of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, fulfilling prophetic expectations rooted in Jewish scripture.

The concept of the Word (Dabar) as the active, creative force of God is central to understanding Yeshua’s identity. In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew phrase "In the beginning, God created" uses Alef-Tav, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, symbolizing the eternal word Of God through which all things were made.

Hmmm, how do I say this? Well, I left out the portion of Luke 3:22 which you have quoted so as not to start a debate with any of the other posters in this thread about my position, which is Adoptionism. And in the Luke case I believe the Codex Bezae (D) version is one of the last places where we have the truth of the matter still available to us in a Gospel account concerning that particular matter, (the matter of the Psalm 2:7 decree having been spoken to the Anointed One at his immersion). Codex Bezae quotes the full decree at the end of Luke 3:22, saying, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you."

https://epapers.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml#B02K16

 

[JustMe]

Hmmm, how do I say this? Well, I left out the portion of Luke 3:22 which you have quoted so as not to start a debate with any of the other posters in this thread about my position, which is Adoptionism. And in the Luke case I believe the Codex Bezae (D) version is one of the last places where we have the truth of the matter still available to us in a Gospel account concerning that particular matter, (the matter of the Psalm 2:7 decree having been spoken to the Anointed One at his immersion). Codex Bezae quotes the full decree at the end of Luke 3:22, saying, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you."

https://epapers.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml#B02K16

I've always thought that there might have been some biased tweaking in verse Luke 3:22 as it source seems to be from...

Psalm 2:7 states: "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

 

[JustMe]

who Really 'created' The SON Of God?

Bible Answer: NO one!

Complete Case For The Triune GodHead!!

He Created All things, and Thus could Not have 'created' Himself!!!

And, precious friend, Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

You do know that the Son of God was once dead and had to be revived to life again. Does that sound like some entity or person who created all things?

 

[Justified]

Try admitting v1 does not mention that God became incarnate or flesh.

I made a simple statement, which, if you understood it, you would see the implied affirmation of your request.

That's the whole point; it doesn't mention that God became flesh. Trinitarians are reading that into the text.

Except that it does. You're not following the flow of John's thoughts and reasoning, but instead taking things piecemeal, which will almost always lead to error. Read John 1:1-18 closely, and as a whole.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The word "was" is the Greek en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and denotes a continuous action in the past. That is, when the beginning began (creation), the Word was already in existence; it is absolute existence, eternal preexistence.

Then when we look at "the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it reads, "the Word was with [the] God."

When it comes to "the Word was God," the article in the Greek is not present. JW's use this to mean that the word was "a god," but that is false, as that is polytheism. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Modalism/Oneness. But this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. What it can only mean then, is that it is a qualitative statement--the Word was divine in nature.

Verse 2 states the very same, succinctly.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Firstly, there is a very simple flow of logic here. If "all things were made through" the Word, and "without him was not any thing made that was made," then if necessarily follows that the Word cannot be something that was ever made, or that entire verse is false. This is in complete agreement with 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col 1:16. All three are exhaustive assertions--not one thing came into being without the Word (Christ; the Son). Even the NWT surprisingly gets John 1:3 right, contradicting its false translations in John 1:1c and Col 1:16-17. This verse precludes the Word from being something that was made, from being something that at one point did not exist. The only logical conclusion is that the Word has always existed.

Secondly, "were made," is the Greek egeneto and refers to "coming into existence." This is an action in time. John is contrasting that with en, "was," in 1:1. It is important to note that en is used only of the Word in the first 13 verses of John 1 and egeneto of everything else and not the Word. This is significant because in verse 14 we see egeneto used of the Word--"And the Word became flesh."

Verses 4 and 5 continue to speak of the Word.

Verses 6 and 7 are about John the Baptist.

Verse 8a is about John the Baptist; 8b is about the Word and picks up the theme of light from verse 5.

Verse 9 continues that theme, saying that "the true light . . . was coming into the world." That clearly is a reference to Christ.

Verses 10-13 jump ahead in time to when Christ "was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him." Very importantly, notice that verse 10 states "and the world was made through him;" that is repeating verse 3, yet here clearly applied to Jesus (the Son).

It is important to note that John seamlessly and without any qualifications or explanations, switches from Logos to light to the person of Jesus, where both the Logos and Jesus (the Son) are said to be involved in creation.

In verse 14, once again John simply switches back to the Logos, going back in time to when the Logos "became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." The Son is the Logos, the very one that existed for all eternity past in interpersonal relationship with the Father, who became flesh.

In verse 15, John has John the Baptist stating that Jesus was greater than him because he was before him. And that was despite the fact that John the Baptist was both conceived first and born first.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Again, those verses are the foundation of everything else in John's Gospel, culminating in Thomas's declaration that Jesus was both his Lord and his God. The entire gospel is predicated on the fact that the Son is the eternal preincarnate Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us."

It's also worth noting here what Rev 19:13 states: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God."

 

[Justified]

I doubt you would even consider my listing of this 'impossible' support in scripture, which I have already documented before, much less my explanation of each point, based on my past interactions with your posts. You would likely overwhelm my responses with your comments, making my words unheard. Engaging in that kind of exchange is not a good use of my time.

If you mean pointing out the flaws in your exegesis and arguments, which is what anyone should be doing (and welcome) if they truly value truth, as all Christians should, then yes. And also I asked for even just one verse.

The issue is this: every anti-Trinitarian I've ever had discussions with doesn't seem to understand context, such as what I pointed out in my previous post. Everything is piecemeal proof-texting, which always leads to the verses speaking clearly of Jesus's humanity (which every Trinitarian agree with), trumping (without warrant for doing so) the verses which clearly speak of his deity. Neither should trump the other, but inevitably, most heresies do so.

Taking them altogether, which proper biblical interpretation dictates, we have to find a way that makes sense of both sets of verses, without one overriding the other. Hence why the doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation of the entire biblical revelation of God to us.

 

[HealthyShape]

Perhaps you might be interested in the following info, (neither is too lengthy, at least imo). The second link also has a section on Philo Judaeus whom you have referenced.

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

MOSES AND MEMRA

Thus Memra is sometimes employed for the Word of the Most High in the Aramaic Targums, (however Memra is not only Aramaic, but also Hebrew, it simply isn't pointed accurately by the Masorete pointed interpretation of that word in the related passages, (which they point as Mamre instead of Memra, one of Abraham's three friends who he is said to be in covenant with, (Gen 14:13)).

Knowing the scripture, understanding these things, and how Yah Elohim is often spoken of in anthropomorphic terminology, and what Paul teaches about that through quoting Isaiah and Psalms, the original Hebrew text would have read something much like the following:

The Memra existed in the beginning, and the Memra was within ELוH, (EL WHO IS), and Yah is the Memra

However, Memra was never intended by the Yhudim to be thought of as a second person of a triune deity. Memra was employed as a way to avoid situations where the Most High appeared to be referred to in anthropomorphic language, (just as Yah also is found in such places because He actually is the Memra, Logos, and Word of the Father sent into the world).

The Memra is neither a human being nor a man.
Yah Elohim is neither a human being nor a man.
The Logos is neither a human being nor a man.

Sorry, I am not interested. Judaism is a different religion with all kinds of wrong explanations, terms and views.

The cultural context of the first church was Hellenism, so, if anything, the Hellenistic Judaism would be the useful environment to talk about regarding the text of the Greek New Testament, not that kind of Judaism you are into. John used the Hellenistic concept of Logos, not Memra or anything like that.

However, you replied to my post that was about the validity of J 1:18, which is a textual question, not a cultural competition question.

 

[dak]

The cultural context of the first church was Hellenism, so, if anything, the Hellenistic Judaism would be the useful environment to talk about regarding the text of the Greek New Testament, not that kind of Judaism you are into. John used the Hellenistic concept of Logos, not Memra or anything like that.

Without fail, catastrophic assumptions always lead to catastrophic error.

 

[JustMe]

If you mean pointing out the flaws in your exegesis and arguments, which is what anyone should be doing (and welcome) if they truly value truth, as all Christians should, then yes. And also I asked for even just one verse.

The issue is this: every anti-Trinitarian I've ever had discussions with doesn't seem to understand context, such as what I pointed out in my previous post. Everything is piecemeal proof-texting, which always leads to the verses speaking clearly of Jesus's humanity (which every Trinitarian agree with), trumping (without warrant for doing so) the verses which clearly speak of his deity. Neither should trump the other, but inevitably, most heresies do so.

Taking them altogether, which proper biblical interpretation dictates, we have to find a way that makes sense of both sets of verses, without one overriding the other. Hence why the doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation of the entire biblical revelation of God to us.

Listen, first set aside the large amount of pride you express in your writing and return to reality. You talk more than you offer helpful and motivating insight. Like many others, you push your own belief system and impose it forcefully onto scripture instead of humbling yourself and listening to those with more experience to understand the truth as why scripture was written.

Take for example John's prologue:

To genuinely understand the truth in this difficult topic, for many, John's prologue, one must first set aside all biases and preconceived ideas. Without doing this, this study becomes a pointless, immature exercise that is endlessly repeated and causes discomfort to more than some, who actually know more that you do. So, additionally, it is important to be aware of one's own mental limits, knowledge, and capacity to learn new concepts, such as within the Greek and Hebrew languages. Many are unable to meet these requirements, which is why disputes persist without end on this type of study.

 

[JustMe]

Without fail, catastrophic assumptions always lead to catastrophic error.

So true, much willful ignorance abounds on these forums

 

[HealthyShape]

To genuinely understand the truth in this difficult topic, for many, John's prologue, one must first set aside all biases and preconceived ideas.

Certainly not all. First, you must understand the terms, language and cultural meanings of the text, not trying to find your own, original one. Language does not work that way.

Second, as a Christian, you must interpret the Christian texts in a Christian, Christo-centric way, not looking for your own, original one.

These are not negotiable.

 

[Wrangler]

Luke 3:22 which you have quoted so as not to start a debate with any of the other posters in this thread about my position, which is Adoptionism.

While I have never heard a complete treatise on adoptionism, I do believe it is the only Biblically justified position based on my own reading of Scripture. See John 1:12, Colossians 3:12, Galatians 3:26 and other verses.

Luke 3:22, saying, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you."

The NLT translation note says some manuscripts include this. Others (most?) don't and neither does the NLT. To me, it is irrelevant since this notion of Jesus becoming God's son on a certain day is explicit in Hebrews 1 and other places.

 

[Wrangler]

You do know that the Son of God was once dead and had to be revived to life again. Does that sound like some entity or person who created all things?

You know, this line of reasoning is the strongest. I've come to realize there are 3 classes of facts:

1. Weakest - Accepted facts. Most accept historical records, like Julius Caesar was a ruler in Ancient Rome. True, there may be ancient documents written in a foreign language that still exist. However, most do not actually gaze upon and understand the source material.
2. Moderate - Temporal facts. It's a little unsettling to recognize that most facts change, e.g., the weather, time, who's on top of a sport, etc. Most arguments probably stem from this category of fact. Imagine a wife criticizing her husband, "I thought you said it wasn't going to rain." The forecast changed and he was unaware.
3. Strongest - Demonstrable Fact. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. The height of Mt. Everest. The sun is up. The car is not where you left it.

@GRACE ambassador is relying on category 1 fact, an accepted interpretation of an ancient foreign language, that itself cannot hold up to scrutiny. This is because an alternative take on the senses of words - which is perfectly valid - changes everything, such as created "through" compared to "by." I stated earlier that ambiguous verses are not a solid foundation to rely on establishing doctrine. And this begs the question of why would one rely on an ambiguous verse to base doctrine? (We've both seen how they cannot even admit such verses are ambiguous)

You brilliantly side step this subtle Philology by going to category 3 fact. There are other verses that categorically say that God is the creator of the universe (whose eternal name is YHWH) and his unique attribute is that he is eternal, meaning never changes. Death is arguably the biggest change a life form, including Jesus, undergoes. This is why I often point out that Jesus death is the most important fact of the Bible. To answer your question; no, someone who died and had to be revived obviously does not sound like the entity who created all things.